Tongues as Initial Evidence

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I had an interesting thought while I was thinking about the issues around the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I was tempted to put it on the AOG forum, but once bitten - twice shy!

However, the thought I had was that the initial evidence of people receiving the baptism in the Spirit was the gift of tongues as shown in the book of Acts. It was quite obvious that this was the case. This is the basis of AOG doctrine.

My conflict about that is that the first evidence of a person receiving the baptism is faith - because it is received by faith, and according to Hebrews, faith is the evidence of things not seen. But when I expressed this on the AOG forum, I came under some intense flak because some thought that I was attacking AOG doctrine.

But it is a matter of perspective. I believe that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence is faith. he believes in faith that he is filled with the Spirit and therefore he launches out and speaks in tongues.

But, and here's the point, the observers who see the person being baptised in the Spirit, the initial evidence for them is the gift of tongues. How else are they going to know that the particular person they prayed for has actually received the baptism in the Spirit?

When we analyse it that way, then there is no conflict with AOG doctrine, because it is a matter of what is manifested by the person receiving the baptism and this manifestation is seen by the observers and for them the initial evidence is the gift of tongues!

But for the person receiving the baptism, he cannot speak in tongues into he first believes he is baptised in the Spirit, therefore faith comes first, then the gift of tongues. This is why I contend that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence for him is faith. Then the next evidence which should flow naturally is the gift of tongues.

 

[Faulty]

When you read each instance of this filling in Acts, you see that indeed some are documented with the recipients speaking in tongues, but not all, including Paul's account.

Personally, I think its reckless to make such an absolute doctrine concerning tongues when it does not hold up in every case demonstrated in the scripture.

 

[MinJeremiah]

When you read each instance of this filling in Acts, you see that indeed some are documented with the recipients speaking in tongues, but not all, including Paul's account.

Personally, I think its reckless to make such an absolute doctrine concerning tongues when it does not hold up in every case demonstrated in the scripture.

When following the laws of interpretation, u cannot come up with that opinion. Paul did speak in tongues when he was filled. Why would his experience be different from others who were filled? He said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian Christians. When do you suppose he started? If you follow the biblical pattern, it would stand to reason that he started the same as those before him; when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It goes against sound reason to think he did not speak in tongues intially after being filled with the Spirit if the other four cases in Acts show them speaking in tongues. Unless he did what I did when I was filled.

When I was filled, I senced the utterance moving on my vocal cords but did not yield and speak. However, that night before I said my night prayer, I said, "Lord I believe I was filled with the Holy Spirit and I fully expect to speak in tongues." I then yielded and spoke in tongues that night. I was filled when the brother laid hands on me. I could have spoke in tongues then.

I said that to say, even if Paul didn't speak in tongues doesn't mean he couldn't had. It is unlikely though that he didn't not speak in tongues. How else would they known he was filled with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When you read each instance of this filling in Acts, you see that indeed some are documented with the recipients speaking in tongues, but not all, including Paul's account.

Personally, I think its reckless to make such an absolute doctrine concerning tongues when it does not hold up in every case demonstrated in the scripture.

I don't have a problem with Paul's account. He was converted to Christ on the Damascus Road and his baptism in the Spirit could quite well have come at a later time, after he was rescued from Damascus and disappeared for 14 years before Barnabus brought him to Antioch. He was certainly baptised in the Spirit by the time he got there. There is no information about how his spiritual life developed while he was out of circulation so we cannot make any reliable assumptions that he did not speak in tongues when he was baptised in the Spirit - because, frankly, we don't have a record of his baptism in water, nor of his baptism in the Spirit.

No one is making up an absolute doctrine. We cannot do that from the Acts accounts because they are diary accounts of Luke's observations. We can format a doctrine on his teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 though because it is more clear cut.

 

[MinJeremiah]

I don't have a problem with Paul's account. He was converted to Christ on the Damascus Road and his baptism in the Spirit could quite well have come at a later time, after he was rescued from Damascus and disappeared for 14 years before Barnabus brought him to Antioch. He was certainly baptised in the Spirit by the time he got there. There is no information about how his spiritual life developed while he was out of circulation so we cannot make any reliable assumptions that he did not speak in tongues when he was baptised in the Spirit - because, frankly, we don't have a record of his baptism in water, nor of his baptism in the Spirit.

No one is making up an absolute doctrine. We cannot do that from the Acts accounts because they are diary accounts of Luke's observations. We can format a doctrine on his teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 though because it is more clear cut.

You don't think Acts is bible priciples in action?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You don't think Acts is bible priciples in action?

Probably, but what has gone on in Acts needs to be balanced with Paul's teaching in the Epistles, in the same way that the principles viewed in the Old Testament need to be balanced with the Gospels and the Epistles. The Book of Acts is made up of observations of events as they happened. Paul's Epistles are made up of doctrinal principles given to him by revelation to provide the doctrinal basis of the Christian church.

It might not be everyone's views, but they are mine and they work for me.

 

[JEBrady]

I had an interesting thought while I was thinking about the issues around the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I was tempted to put it on the AOG forum, but once bitten - twice shy!

However, the thought I had was that the initial evidence of people receiving the baptism in the Spirit was the gift of tongues as shown in the book of Acts. It was quite obvious that this was the case. This is the basis of AOG doctrine.

My conflict about that is that the first evidence of a person receiving the baptism is faith - because it is received by faith, and according to Hebrews, faith is the evidence of things not seen. But when I expressed this on the AOG forum, I came under some intense flak because some thought that I was attacking AOG doctrine.

But it is a matter of perspective. I believe that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence is faith. he believes in faith that he is filled with the Spirit and therefore he launches out and speaks in tongues.

But, and here's the point, the observers who see the person being baptised in the Spirit, the initial evidence for them is the gift of tongues. How else are they going to know that the particular person they prayed for has actually received the baptism in the Spirit?

When we analyse it that way, then there is no conflict with AOG doctrine, because it is a matter of what is manifested by the person receiving the baptism and this manifestation is seen by the observers and for them the initial evidence is the gift of tongues!

But for the person receiving the baptism, he cannot speak in tongues into he first believes he is baptised in the Spirit, therefore faith comes first, then the gift of tongues. This is why I contend that for the person receiving the baptism in the Spirit, the initial evidence for him is faith. Then the next evidence which should flow naturally is the gift of tongues.

There isn't anything in the bible that talks about "initial evidence". The only thing "initial evidence" means is that when you get baptized in the Spirit you speak in tongues. It doesn't really make any sense to take this concept and try to apply it to something that isn't seen. The only way I might see some sense in this is if you were to say tongues is the evidence of faith to receive the baptism. So, it's tongues that's the evidence of faith, not faith that's the evidence of tongues, or of the baptism because the faith isn't seen.

Jude commands us to pray in the spirit. Paul wrote that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself. It would be unjust of God to command us to do something unless we could all do it. Tongues comes with the baptism. That's all the "initial evidence" doctrine is about.

 

[ARBITER01]

Well if we go by what was predicted as initial evidence,...

Act 2:16 but this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

This was said by Peter following the event with tongues, so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter, but ultimately, the gift of prophecy was mentioned here, not tongues.

AOG churches have their own doctrinal fences they abide by, and if you suggest anything other than tongues as evidence of the filling of The Holy Spirit to them, they go haywire arguing with you.

I was filled with The Holy Spirit the following day of my born again experience by Jesus, and I prophesied that same night. Tongues did not come for me until around 6 months or so later when I prayed and fasted for them. I also personally knew a person who could operate in the gift of interpretation but who could not speak in tongues himself, so the idea that tongues is the only evidence is baloney. How GOD distributes the gifts to people is however HE wants.

 

[Faulty]

When following the laws of interpretation, u cannot come up with that opinion. Paul did speak in tongues when he was filled. Why would his experience be different from others who were filled? He said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian Christians. When do you suppose he started?"

I don't know when he started, because the scripture doesn't tell us.

I never said Paul didn't speak in tongues at all, I just said that the scripture does not record that event as taking place when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It has to be assumed by people who want it there because it just 'fits' in their mind. That's cramming scripture into doctrine, rather than extracting doctrine from scripture.

If you follow the biblical pattern, it would stand to reason that he started the same as those before him; when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It goes against sound reason to think he did not speak in tongues intially after being filled with the Spirit if the other four cases in Acts show them speaking in tongues. Unless he did what I did when I was filled.

The biblical 'pattern' is that not every account of the baptism is followed by a note that they spoke in tongues. So either God forgot to mention it, didn't consider it important enough to mention, or they just simply didn't speak in tongues initially.

 

[JEBrady]

Well if we go by what was predicted as initial evidence,...



This was said by Peter following the event with tongues, so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter, but ultimately, the gift of prophecy was mentioned here, not tongues.

AOG churches have their own doctrinal fences they abide by, and if you suggest anything other than tongues as evidence of the filling of The Holy Spirit to them, they go haywire arguing with you.

I was filled with The Holy Spirit the following day of my born again experience by Jesus, and I prophesied that same night. Tongues did not come for me until around 6 months or so later when I prayed and fasted for them. I also personally knew a person who could operate in the gift of interpretation but who could not speak in tongues himself, so the idea that tongues is the only evidence is baloney. How GOD distributes the gifts to people is however HE wants.

I have a couple of questions.

Why would you assume someone was interpreting tongues because Peter mentioned prophecy?

Why would you develop doctrinal conclusions based on personal experience?

 

[MrBojangles]

What Arby says is true. The manifestation in Acts two was more prophecy than tongues. It was a message given in a known language to people who heard it and understood what was being said. No interpreter was needed. Peter said "this is that" which was predicted by Joel, and Joel predicted prophecy.

Well if we go by what was predicted as initial evidence,...



This was said by Peter following the event with tongues, so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter, but ultimately, the gift of prophecy was mentioned here, not tongues.

AOG churches have their own doctrinal fences they abide by, and if you suggest anything other than tongues as evidence of the filling of The Holy Spirit to them, they go haywire arguing with you.

I was filled with The Holy Spirit the following day of my born again experience by Jesus, and I prophesied that same night. Tongues did not come for me until around 6 months or so later when I prayed and fasted for them. I also personally knew a person who could operate in the gift of interpretation but who could not speak in tongues himself, so the idea that tongues is the only evidence is baloney. How GOD distributes the gifts to people is however HE wants.

 

[JEBrady]

What Arby says is true. The manifestation in Acts two was more prophecy than tongues. It was a message given in a known language to people who heard it and understood what was being said. No interpreter was needed. Peter said "this is that" which was predicted by Joel, and Joel predicted prophecy.

I appreciate the response, MrB. Arbiter01 said, "so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter". I don't understand how someone interpreting tongues would make tongues be considered prophecy, hence my question.

I wouldn't say Acts 2 was "more prophecy than tongues". The scriptural record says they began to speak with other tongues, so I would say it was one hundred percent tongues. The fact that it was spoken in a known language doesn't make it prophecy unless it was the speaker's native language. Was it also prophecy at the same time, since those who heard understood it because it was spoken in their native language? I'd say yes. I consider that this sort of thing happens a lot- that more than one "gift" occurs during a manifestation, e.g. when revelation comes forth during a prophecy.

 

[ARBITER01]

I appreciate the response, MrB. Arbiter01 said, "so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter". I don't understand how someone interpreting tongues would make tongues be considered prophecy, hence my question.

I wouldn't say Acts 2 was "more prophecy than tongues". The scriptural record says they began to speak with other tongues, so I would say it was one hundred percent tongues. The fact that it was spoken in a known language doesn't make it prophecy unless it was the speaker's native language. Was it also prophecy at the same time, since those who heard understood it because it was spoken in their native language? I'd say yes. I consider that this sort of thing happens a lot- that more than one "gift" occurs during a manifestation, e.g. when revelation comes forth during a prophecy.

Because tongues by utterance with interpretation is prophecy according to scripture,..

1Co 14:5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Peter described the event as prophecy, not tongues,..

Act 2:16 but this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel;

He did not refer to the event as just people speaking in tongues. And that would make sense since we are told that the people were speaking by utterance of The Holy Spirit, which in turn would require interpretation.

In other words, they were not speaking in their prayer languages out in front of the people, and we are not suppose to, that is to be kept between GOD and us.

 

[JEBrady]

Because tongues by utterance with interpretation is prophecy according to scripture,..

1Co 14:5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
​

That scripture doesn't say tongues + interpretation of tongues is prophecy, it doesn't even say it is the equivalent of prophecy. It simply says that if you prophesy you are greater than if you speak in a tongue unless you interpret it so that the church is edified. The point is to edify the church. Paul is telling us to use some sense- we are not communicating anything worthwhile in church if we speak in tongues and it is not interpreted.

 

[ARBITER01]

That scripture doesn't say tongues + interpretation of tongues is prophecy, it doesn't even say it is the equivalent of prophecy. It simply says that if you prophesy you are greater than if you speak in a tongue unless you interpret it so that the church is edified. The point is to edify the church. Paul is telling us to use some sense- we are not communicating anything worthwhile in church if we speak in tongues and it is not interpreted.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

The focus of Paul's statement was "greater is he" over and above the other gift "unless" one interprets, meaning that the gift of prophecy is not greater than tongues when someone interprets the message by utterance.

This is very basic stuff pertaining to the gifts my friend, and I'm quite surprised that I'm having to explain this to you, let alone you trying to argue the fact.

 

[TehMill]

This wonderful gift. [Lord I give thanks]

Of course Jesus says these signs will follow those who believe....they shall speak in new tongues......

I came up against this AOG thingy, well when I was saved and filled with the Holy Ghost the glory hit me like a huge wave and waves of glory continued to roll over me for days [and still do] a weight of glory, the shekinah.

But I was saved at home, alone, I shouted "hooray, hooray Jesus" incidentally not being told that it should have been "hallelujah" or something holy.

This is just the point, God usually doesn't do things apart from what we expect from scripture I did not know about tongues, I had visions, I had power to testify, I had a radiant face. Now my local pentecostal church was typical of the open on Sunday and open on wednesday sort and since I got saved on Thursday I did not get to meet any christians for days. So I spent the whole day Friday in the book store bugging the life out of the poor beleaguered staff trying to find books that dealt with being saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost, miracles etc, one even ran away and hid.

When I found a book that dealt with these things I learned about tongues. But I was filled with the Holy Ghost already. When people run away and hide you know you are filled with the Holy Ghost.

[ah, that was a joke, not a doctrinal statement.]

 

[NorrinRadd]

When following the laws of interpretation, u cannot come up with that opinion.

Of course we can, because there are so many inconsistencies among the various Spirit-receiving or Spirit-filling accounts in Acts that it is impossible to reasonably construct any kind of systematic pneumatology.

Paul did speak in tongues when he was filled. Why would his experience be different from others who were filled?

It does not explicitly *say* that he spoke in tongues. In the Spirit-receiving account in Acts 8, it *also* makes no such mention. In the account in Acts 19, both "tongues" and "prophecy" are mentioned, so that one could reasonably infer that some recipients responded with one gift, others another.

He said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian Christians. When do you suppose he started?

Clearly, he started when he started, and that occasion is not revealed.

If you follow the biblical pattern, it would stand to reason that he started the same as those before him; when he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as a "Biblical pattern" on this matter. I've already cited three exceptions. Acts 10 shows a different kind of exception, in that the clear sense of the passage is that Cornelius and his household reversed the standard AG order by being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues before even fully hearing and believing the Gospel itself.

 

[NorrinRadd]

There isn't anything in the bible that talks about "initial evidence". The only thing "initial evidence" means is that when you get baptized in the Spirit you speak in tongues. It doesn't really make any sense to take this concept and try to apply it to something that isn't seen. The only way I might see some sense in this is if you were to say tongues is the evidence of faith to receive the baptism. So, it's tongues that's the evidence of faith, not faith that's the evidence of tongues, or of the baptism because the faith isn't seen.

Jude commands us to pray in the spirit. Paul wrote that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself. It would be unjust of God to command us to do something unless we could all do it. Tongues comes with the baptism. That's all the "initial evidence" doctrine is about.

As you yourself here indicate, it is a "doctrine" that is "about" something that the Bible doesn't actually directly address. Since the Acts accounts do not follow a consistent pattern, and since the very terms, "receive the Spirit" and "baptize in the Spirit" do not have consistent meanings, it's silly to have a firm "doctrine" regarding what is the "initial evidence" of "receiving" or being "baptized in" the Spirit.

 

[JEBrady]

As you yourself here indicate, it is a "doctrine" that is "about" something that the Bible doesn't actually directly address. Since the Acts accounts do not follow a consistent pattern, and since the very terms, "receive the Spirit" and "baptize in the Spirit" do not have consistent meanings, it's silly to have a firm "doctrine" regarding what is the "initial evidence" of "receiving" or being "baptized in" the Spirit.

Well slap me down and call me silly!

I think it's silly to even have to have a doctrine about it, but I suppose you have to deal with the weaknesses of man. I didn't get taught about it before I received, I read Acts 2 and expected to speak in tongues when I received the baptism, and so I did.

Maybe the reason so few ever spoke in tongues for some hundreds of years prior to Azusa street is because it became popular to assume we get baptized in the spirit without speaking in tongues, then when no one did (speak in tongues) for a while, we concluded it was "not for today". What you want to bet we're not headed for that again? Even in AoG churches it's becoming something of a rarity to hear tongues in meetings.

Just a thought.

 

[MrBojangles]

I appreciate the response, MrB. Arbiter01 said, "so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter". I don't understand how someone interpreting tongues would make tongues be considered prophecy, hence my question.

I wouldn't say Acts 2 was "more prophecy than tongues". The scriptural record says they began to speak with other tongues, so I would say it was one hundred percent tongues. The fact that it was spoken in a known language doesn't make it prophecy unless it was the speaker's native language. Was it also prophecy at the same time, since those who heard understood it because it was spoken in their native language? I'd say yes. I consider that this sort of thing happens a lot- that more than one "gift" occurs during a manifestation, e.g. when revelation comes forth during a prophecy.

As you likely know, the word for "tongues" in actually "languages" and so we may be jumping the gun assuming that the intended meaning was the spiritual gift "diversities of tongues" rather than the spiritual gift "prophesy." Since (according to I Corin 14) "unknown tongues" are by their very nature "unknown" and "no man understands" what is being said... I would have to conclude that what happened in Acts 2 was not "unknown tongues"... if they were "unknown tongues" nobody would have understood them and an interpreter would have been required.

1Co 14:2
(2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

So there are two proofs in this one verse that show that what happened in Acts 2 was not "unknown tongues":

• First, the messages were known languages that people could hear and understand(no man understands tongues...), and second,
• the message given was to men, not to God. (he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT unto men, but unto God)

Also, all tongues require an interpreter... which is obvious since no man understands what is being said.

1Co 14:27-28
(27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
(28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

None of this happened in Acts 2. What actually occurred has no resemblance to the definitions of "unknown tongues" that we see in 1 Corin.

So what happened in Acts two was not 100% unknown tongues. It was a unique combination of different manifestations including tongues and prophecy. What seems to have happened was an instance of men prophesying in languages they did not know, but that were known to some men present.

There are other issues. We know that not all have any one gift. Yet here we see that the ALL manifested this one specific gift. So that is another strike against the assumption that this is a single spiritual gift being manifested.

So while the word "tongues" is used on the opening verses, what actually happened has little or no resemblance to the "unknown tongues" as described in 1 Corin. People have attempted to resolve the many discrepancies and smooth over the obvious contradictions only to end up with even more confusion. I have just resolved to designate it as a unique spiritual manifestation that cannot be pigeon holed into any one spiritual gift as described in 1 Corin. It has elements of tongues and prophecy. That is as close as we can get.

What do you think?